Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul
Dont waste your time, the member in question has demonstrated a number of times that hes all in favour of US officers shooting their countrymen dead, and will argue blindly with anyone who disagrees it was fully justified, whatever the actual evidence.
---------- Post added at 00:16 ---------- Previous post was at 00:15 ----------
They are not routinely armed (but they can be).
|
ANYTHING BUT BLINDLY. After careful watching of videos, trying to research procedures and training principles, etc.
It's about understanding the situation at the time and why it happened.
The people that are BLINDLY agreeing with something are making silly claims implying that ICE officers are wildly going around looking for somebody to shoot. Along with so many other ridiculous claims, many of which are physically impossible and defy the laws of Physics and motion.
It is FACT, that he was NOT completely restrained(eg half-kneeling when shot), was combative, resisting, and moving around, whilst carrying a gun.
A lot of US law enforcement would've reacted the same way.
Quote:
The “textbook answer” is that officers fire until they’ve terminated a threat, according to Seth Stoughton, an associate professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law who studies policing.
Officers use deadly force on a suspect they perceive to be an imminent threat of death or bodily harm to the officers or others. In training, police are told to use force until that person no longer presents a threat, Stoughton said.
...
If officers are using deadly force, they’re usually trained to not pause their fire and to shoot in quick succession – taking a break to assess the suspect they’re shooting at could give that suspect time to harm them or others, he said.
|
If in both cases they had simply "surrendered" and complied and not tried to resist, nothing would've happened. THEIR CHOICE. It was the result of THEIR actions.